A limited constitutional government calls for a rules-based, freemarket monetary system, not the topsy-turvy fiat dollar that now exists under central banking. This issue of the Cato Journal examines the case for alternatives to central banking and the reforms needed to move toward free-market money.

The more widespread use of body cameras will make it easier for the American public to better understand how police officers do their jobs and under what circumstances they feel that it is necessary to resort to deadly force.

Americans are finally enjoying an improving economy after years of recession and slow growth. The unemployment rate is dropping, the economy is expanding, and public confidence is rising. Surely our economic crisis is behind us. Or is it? In Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis, Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner examines the growing national debt and its dire implications for our future and explains why a looming financial meltdown may be far worse than anyone expects.

The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is not just a framework for utopia,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.

Search form

Search this site

Commentary

Campaign Finance Laws Backfire on Public

By
Bradley A. Smith

This article originally appeared in USA Today.

Is the United States governed any better today than it was in the 1930s? 1940s? 1950s? Was Bill Clinton vs. Bob Dole, or George Bush vs. Michael Dukakis, a better choice than Adlai Stevenson vs. Dwight Eisenhower or Harry Truman vs. Tom Dewey?

It comes as a surprise to many Americans to learn that, prior to 1974, there were effectively no limits at all on who could give what to political campaigns. Large gifts were the rule, not the exception. Have our politics improved since 1974?

We are told we need more campaign finance reform, that we need to close existing “loopholes.” What evidence is there, however, to suggest that laws regulating political contributions have improved anything?

In fact, our 20-year effort to limit contributions has decreased the influence of regular people and increased the importance of the media, lawyers, consultants and professional fund-raisers. Contribution limits have forced our representatives to spend an inordinate amount of time raising cash and made them more dependent on special interests who can provide them with cash.

People have a First Amendment right to participate in politics. Efforts to restrict that right are like squeezing a balloon. The air simply bulges out elsewhere. Thus we see labor unions making $35 million in “independent expenditures,” all aimed at Republicans, and the rise of “child gifts” by people who seek to get around the $1,000 individual contribution limit.

Such practices make litigation over spending and contributions a prominent campaign tactic and actually make it harder to determine who really is backing a candidate.

It is time to return to the system that served us well for nearly 200 years. Let’s do away with the arcane restrictions on contributions. By simply requiring full disclosure of all contributions, we can bring political giving into the open, and voters can judge the candidates accordingly.

When the founders signed the Declaration of Independence, they pledged to the cause “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” They did not pledge their fortunes “up to $1,000 per year.” Had the king placed such a limit on their political participation, they undoubtedly would have considered it another reason to revolt.